This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Dacia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Originally the passage I copied from the 1911 EB read as follows:

"He went with Nero's retinue to Greece, and in 66 was appointed to conduct the war in Judaea, which was threatening unreast throughout the East, owing to a ubiquitous tale in those parts that from Judaea were to come the future rulers of the world."

After some further reflections, I realised that this might appear to some readers as pushing a under-handed agenda of promoting one view of the contents of the article on Jesus Christ. This was not my intent: I reserve all opinion on the historical facts of this personage, & am not interested in presenting them here. The author of the 1911 EB article -- who is my source about this -- was merely recasting the statements of Suetonius, who actually reports that there was a story to this effect in circulation at this time. Or so our manuscripts say. -- llywrch 03:59 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

The article says: "originally known as Titus Flavius Vespasianus". But Titus Flavius Vespasianus redirects to Titus, not to Vespasian. Please clarify, disambig or error. mikka (t) 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They both had the same name. I've disambig'd it. --Nicknack009 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "Imperator" really part of his official name? I thought that was his title.Student7 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Latin there's precious little difference between a name and a title, especially for Roman Emperors ("Augustus" and "Caesar" are good examples of this). Lots of emperors used the words that we think of as their titles, including "Imperator", as names. Binabik80 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 15:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the word to "grain" since it obviously wasn't referring to maize. siafu 15:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But might it not be referring more specifically to wheat? — Pekinensis 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure, so I put "grain" which can't fail to be accurate, if imprecise. If you do know it to be wheat, by all means change it. siafu 15:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course this is fine if we don't know, but I'd imagined I was addressing the original author and that they would know what they had meant. Perhaps that person is gone now. Thanks — Pekinensis 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the urinal page there is a note about Vespasian:

Parisians referred [their street urinals] as vespasiennes, the name being derived from that of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, who imposed a tax on urine.

Is this true, or just an another misunderstanding like Caligula and the horse?

Talamus 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tax was on public lavitories. It is true and mentioned in Suetonius, but more in the light of a joke than as an act of tyranny. RBobicus 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have heard that Vespasian actually invented the public toilet, and that in France public toilets were referred to as vespasiennes as recently as thirty years ago (and may be still, for all I know). My understanding, which doesn't come from a reliable source unfortunately, is that Vespasian invented the public toilet for the purpose of collecting human urine for the tanning of leather, and that this much easier urine collection made leathers much more affordable to Romans. I thought I'd put that into the discussion in case anyone else has a citable source on it! Songflower 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there were privately operated public toilets in Rome a couple of centuries before Vespasian. You had to pay to use them, though. Binabik80 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last section really needs some NPOV cleanup. Tell us who said he was a great emperor. Nippoo 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Grant, Gibbon and H.A. Mattingly come right to mind. I see your point about the final section though. It looks like there are a lot of unsourced statements there.RBobicus 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have duly flagged it so. Sources for these opinions need to be found. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who said Vespasian was a great emperor? Firstly, his son Titus, who deified him (of the earlier emperors only Augustus and Claudius had been deified up to this point), but he would say that, wouldn't he. Secondly, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus uses phrases such as "mighty reputation" (Suetonius, Vespasian 8), and consider Suetonius Vespasian 12; "In all other matters he was from first to last modest and lenient", and Vespasian 16 lists his "one serious failing" as avarice. Sue. Vesp 17; "Vespasian behaved most generously to all classes", Sue Vesp 22; "nearly always ... good natured".

In modern authors, I would add Garzetti, in 'From Tiberius to the Antonines: A history of the Roman Empire AD 14 - 192' translated by J.R. Foster. For example; pg 226 "... the hope that the civil war ... had finally completed its destructive cycle, but also by the weariness of Italy and the words of wisdom and peace which came from the new Princeps. The reality did not belie the expectations." Page 227; "With the fading of the bloom of the urban emperors ... the Princeps who now followed brought with him, ... the new element which, grafted onto jojoba the old, still standing trunk, was to ensure the exuberant continuation of the empire at its political summit." Ibid; "The administration was once again the saving element ...". Pg 228 "Thus it is right to equate the reign of Vespasian with the first decisive change of direction in the empire. ... the Roman imperial state resumed, after this first crisis, its still prosperous progress ... ". Pg 239 "... more disposed to live in harmony with a Princeps who embodied the ideals of its own Italian and provincial origins." Finally, on page 257 the concluding sentence about Vespasian is "By the last few years of the reign, abroad as well as at home, the most stable and well-ordered security system ever enjoyed by the empire had been organized."

Pliny the Elder called him "the greatest ruler of all time" in his Natural History, Book II, part 18: "Deus est mortali iuvare mortalem, et haec ad aeternam gloriam via. Hac proceres iere Romani, hac nunc caelesti passu cum liberis suis vadit maximus omnis aevi rector Vespasianus Augustus fessis rebus subveniens." 74.214.103.181 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pliny the Elder wrote the work under Vespasian's rule, so it must be seen with a caveat: as somewhat flattering. It's true though that after the series of civil wars that racked the empire after the fall of Nero, Vespasian was the one who finally was able to provide stability. That may account for some of the praise as well. -- fdewaele, 22 February 2010, 19:50 CET.

Well perhaps a fitting irony of "vandalism" here. It is claimed that Vespasian dies of a bad case of diarrhea, stands, and says "Shit. I am already becoming a god!" [28]. The source text claims he came down with the gout, a fever, and simply said: "I am already becoming a god!", and not "Shit. I am already becoming a god!". Mikecnn (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a better translation might be "Oh dear! I think I'm becoming a god" I'll see if I can find some sources for various translations. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The penguin classic Suetonius says "Dear me!...". Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Barbara Levick says "Oh!..." She also says it was perhaps not an example of Vespasians ironic sense of humour but a scurrilous rumour put about because it is an oblique reference to Claudius' last words "Oh! I think I've messed myself!" Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• One translation of Cassius say's "Woe's me!....." Another says "Now I shall become a god" with out the "vae".Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone knows the etymology of the names Vespasia\Vespasian? Does it simply come from vespa (wasp)? --Codrin.B (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Far too much reliance on primary sources. Suetonious, who is often wrong and full of gossip, for one thing. Secondary modern historians' work needs to be utilized much more heavily. 2. Nothing at all about his Christian persecutions, which were a part of his reign. The 'second founder of the Principate' was treated pretty well in the Roman pagan sources, but it is far from the full truth. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. The usage of "CE" and "BCE" would be historically preferential to "BC" and "AD" in this article for the following reason: the consensus academic name for the figure known in English as "Jesus Christ," Yeshua ben Yosef, was one of several insurrectionists the Roman authorities fought at this general time of unrest in the Judean province (later renamed Palestrina by the Romans) which this article describes, culminating ultimately with the destruction of the Second Temple in the Jewish War. To cite dates such as "BC" and "AD" in this article, which are motivated by those within what is academically-speaking a Roman-era Jewish cult (Christianity)--originating within a province (Judea) whose destruction Vespasian himself sought to secure--is perplexing in such a context. Neutral dates such as "CE" and "BCE" would make more historical sense. - added by some Anon that didn't sign in

Nope. We go by the Wiki rules. If it started using BC/AD, it stays that way.50.111.19.178 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The paragraph about Vespasian's older brother refers to his career in the 30s & 40s (working with Caligula), but the link to Titus Flavius Sabinus has him first mentioned in 45 and then active in the 40s and 50s (working with Nero). Can anyone resolve this apparent inconsistency - or am I just very confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vespasian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712205746/http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf to http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we know where he was buried (beyond "Rome"). He's not listed as one of the occupants of the mausoleum of Augustus.Furius (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article contains a contradiction in regards to Vespasian's early career and the years he was aedile and praetor. In "Early life", it says He rose through the ranks of Roman public office, being elected aedile on his second attempt in 39 and praetor on his first attempt in 40, taking the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the Emperor Caligula. However, in "Military and political career / Early career", it says Vespasian failed at his first attempt to gain an aedileship but was successful in his second attempt, becoming an aedile in 38. Despite his lack of significant family connections or success in office, he achieved praetorship in either 39 or 40... (bolding added). Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless it’s a problem at my end, it appears that the majority of content on this page has disappeared. This seems to follow from an extensive series of edits by user “Cote D’azur”. FreddieRainbow (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What content do you think has disappeared? All I can see in the recent changes you refer to is an argument between two editors on whether to use CE or AD? Chewings72 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s all back! Maybe it was a problem at my end after all - or maybe somebody was mid-edit or something. Anyway, all is well. FreddieRainbow (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Head of Vespasianus in Palazzo Massimo (Rome).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last par of the "Year of the 4 emperors" section:

"As Pharaonic precedent demanded, Vespasian demonstrated his divine election by the traditional methods of spitting on and trampling a blind and crippled man, thereby miraculously healing him. (This Egyptian tradition of healing is related to the healing the man blind from birth, one of the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth.)[24]: 14 "

How is the tradition related to this miracle? Jesus had only died around 33 years earlier. The first gospel was written by a dying Mark around this time, in Egypt granted. How had the religion/sect become so entwined into Egyptian culture?

If the relationship is that they both involve healing blind men this is so vague as to be irrelevant and presumably an attempt to shoehorn Jesus into the article.

Sorry im being lazy not researching myself or editing, but first time commenter and I don't have proof, just seems ridiculous. 81.107.156.207 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. The claim does sound dubious and I'm not sure how relevant it is in any case. The text was added in January 2021 by @GPinkerton:, who can perhaps shed some light on the matter? Furius (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]